In planning for the Columbia River Crossing (a new bridge planned to cross the Columbia River and connect Portland with Vancouver, Washington), they are looking at any means to reduce the cost of the bridge, as they aren't getting the kind of funding they thought they would. One of the items on the potential hit list are two freeway interchanges from the bridge onto Hayden Island and Marine Drive, on the Oregon side of the Columbia River. Just those 1.5 miles of freeway are going to cost around 1.5 billion dollars.
We all get to pay for that. I will probably almost never use that bridge, and especially not on a bike, but I will pay for that. So will everyone else who lives in Portland and Vancouver.
Now, as a comparison, all of the infrastructure updates that Portland has made to 300 miles of road to make them more bike-friendly (painted bike lanes, cycle track, speed bumps, round-abouts, bike boxes, signage, etc) has cost approximately 60 million dollars. That's 4% of what that 1.5 miles of new freeway would cost.
We all pay for that as well. However, it takes a whole lot less out of each person's pocket. Remember, that $1.5 billion is just for those 1.5 miles of freeway - imagine what the hundreds of miles through our cities cost us. Let's be honest, roads don't just appear, we pay for them. More to the point, the government subsidizes much of them, and we pay taxes to the government.
The truth is, everyone pays a very similar share for all of this. The difference is, infrastructure to support cycling is not only much more economical in a direct sense, but improves the health of a city, improves the air quality, reduces noise, reduces traffic congestion, and helps soften the modern world we live in by putting people out in public instead of giant steel boxes.
Don't get me wrong, I know that highways and automobile infrastructure in general is important to our society. The point is, everyone would benefit from cities making cycling a safe, viable means of transportation for anyone in the city who chose to do so, and by encouraging people in real, practical ways (not just by saying they should) to not drive a car in instances when it's basically as easy (possibly easier) to get there without one.
8 comments:
People forget that all of us pay for roads, and oil, and bridges... every time you pay your taxes, you pay for that stuff. Every time you buy a tomato, you pay the fuel costs of its production, transportation and distribution. Every time you buy anything you pay for all of the things that came before that moment- the delivery truck maintenance and fuel, the cost of building the factory that made it, the fuel costs incurred by the people who built the factory....
We all pay. Al the time. Until we die.
"I know that highways and automobile infrastructure in general is important to our society."
I actually don't necessarily agree with this. See Ivan Illich's Energy & Equity:
http://clevercycles.com/energy_and_equity/
See also André Gorz's The Social Ideology of the Motorcar:
http://rts.gn.apc.org/socid.htm
". . .everyone would benefit from cities making cycling a safe, viable means of transportation"
This I agree with. See Ivan Illich's Energy & Equity. :)
@kfg: What I meant by that statement (and maybe wasn't very clear), is that given our current economy, lifestyle, etc - our highway system is important to sustaining it, and most people perceive it as an essential part of life.
I've read Energy and Equity, and I would agree with his points that when we structure our world around a form of travel that requires such a huge expenditure of energy, we inherently create disparities and all kinds of social problems.
I also think (to expand on Adrienne's comment), that growing food locally makes a huge difference, not only because mass-produced food tends to taste awful, have all kinds of crazy things done to it, etc - but because food that is grown locally can then be delivered in energy-efficient means (by bicycle even, as quite a bit of food in Portland is grown within city limits).
I think in the not-too-distant future, we're going to see life change significantly to more localized economies (it's already starting here), and I think that has a lot of benefits, reduced transportation being one of them.
Totally. I pay for the roads and highways. I also pay for sidewalks etc. I am really annoyed with this line of argument ( not you, but people who are saying cyclists need to pay for extra infrastructure. Like we are some alien human race of people attached to two wheels sucking up resources. It's stupid.)
". . .our highway system is important to sustaining it"
Well, I think it may be far more important to dismantle it. :)
". . .most people perceive it as an essential part of life."
Most people think things that don't even exist are an essential part of life. People are prone to think funny things. There's no accounting for them.
"I've read Energy and Equity . . ."
I suspected you had. Although I was responding to your post I wasn't necessarily actually talking directly to YOU. The Intarwebs are like that sometimes.
"I am really annoyed with this line of argument"
I don't have kids in school. My house has never caught fire. I filter my own water. The cops ARE the criminal menace. Street lighting screws up my star gazing. I don't use health coverage.
I want my money back; or maybe I just don't understand the concept of distribution.
""It's stupid."
People often are. There's no accounting for people.
"I don't have kids in school."
But if we don't have smart people getting educated, no one will be able to work at the places that make things for you and serve you.
"My house has never caught fire."
Yet. So if it does, will you refuse aid? Also, what if your neighbors house catches fire - do you want them to put it out before it gets to yours? How about all the times firemen respond to medical emergencies?
"I filter my own water."
How does it get to your house?
"The cops ARE the criminal menace."
Well, I guess I agree with you on that one.
"Street lighting screws up my star gazing."
I agree with you to some extent here. Certainly we could use maybe about 1/10th of the damn lighting we put around. Do car dealerships have to keep 150 massive lights on all the damn time? Do our streetlights and house lights all have to shine into space - or could they maybe have shields and be directed down to where we actually need the light?
" I don't use health coverage."
yet.
Actually, you don't have to view cycling infrastructure as a cost at all. The Dutch build it because it's a money saving process. It's cheaper to build it than not to build it. Even the savings in costs to companies due to employees cycling are enough to build a lot of cycling infrastructure. Would it help to save $17B a year ?.
Anon: You neglected to comment on this portion of my post:
". . . maybe I just don't understand the concept of distribution."
Post a Comment